From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.ferre@atmel.com (Nicolas Ferre) Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 08:59:35 +0200 Subject: [RFCv2 2/3] dts: zynq: Add devicetree entry for Xilinx Zynq reset controller. In-Reply-To: References: <1437783682-13632-1-git-send-email-moritz.fischer@ettus.com> <1437783682-13632-3-git-send-email-moritz.fischer@ettus.com> <55B5D62D.4010407@monstr.eu> Message-ID: <55B72857.3020108@atmel.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Le 28/07/2015 07:03, Moritz Fischer a ?crit : > Hi Michal, > > I agree we need to be careful with changing the bindings. > > On Sun, Jul 26, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Michal Simek wrote: >> Hi Moritz, >> >> On 07/25/2015 02:21 AM, Moritz Fischer wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Moritz Fischer >>> --- >>> arch/arm/boot/dts/zynq-7000.dtsi | 43 ++++++++++++- >> >> This patch is nice in general but every change in binding should be >> discussed separately. There is also necessary to wire them up in the >> driver to do action. That's why I think that will be the best just to >> add the code to slcr and keep others untouched. > > Ok, just to clarify: You'd suggest to just add the rstc as child node > to the slcr, > and leave the other nodes untouched? > >> >> For example MACB/GEM is one example. Adding names to this node and >> extending driver to work properly with reset means that all others MACB >> users will be affected. Definitely this patch should be ACKed by Nicolas. Actually, I don't know why a reset property should be added to the macb driver... Bye, -- Nicolas Ferre